Talk:Halle Berry

Hit and run incidents

In 2006 fox news stated that halle berry was charged with two misdemeanors for separate hit and run incidents:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wg_Jg8hVlg4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedo3000 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived remark restored for context.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

movies

On Filmography you can see 'Strictly Business, but that is a article about the album not: Strictly Business (film). Kamila 064 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Franchement alalala???

umm..what is this??? it's really confusing...is it some sort of irreversable vandalism? it's not going away when i try to remove it. Pinkpupp62 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Flintstones Character

The name of Berry's character in the Flintstones movie was Rosetta Stone not Sharon Stone. Someone should correct that. 68.144.146.241 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Halle_Berry/Archive_1#Name_of_her_character_in_The_Flintstones. Gimmetrow 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First and Only African-American actress to win an Oscar?

I do believe the distinction also goes to Charlize Theron, being an African-American woman to win an Oscar. Charlize is actually FROM Africa (check her own page on this site), making her the true definition of an African-American.

And if anyone wants to say that Halle Berry should be acknowledged as the only African American because her skin is darker, I'd like to remind everyone that Halle is of mixed racial background. Her mother is caucasian and her father negro. If that qualifies her as "African" then the definition of African is very loose. Theron is a born and raised African, and therefore should be acknowledged as another African-American to win an Oscar. No knock on Halle. I love her. She's my favorite "black" actress. This is more a criticism of the asinine nature of political correctness and the ridiculous term "African-American". If race is going to be related to a person's continent/country of origin, and not their actual biological race, then Theron is being discriminated against because her skin is white. She is a white African, whilst Berry is an American of mixed ethnicity (whose ancestry can be traced to Africa). Theron has a more direct connection to Africa, so why is she not considered "African American"?

Wikipedia. GET IT RIGHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.32.53 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually think you could have made the same point without indulging in the show of indignation and preaching about your viewpoint on political correctness. Theron's own article, to which you refer, describes her as South African-American. Meanwhile, in any case, Berry is still the first African-American to win a Best Actress Oscar, Theron didn't win until 2 years later. However, Berry fits both criteria based on Wikipedia's own article, African American. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hit and run

I don't think anyone would dispute that the incidents are attributed to sources, or that they warrant mention. The question is how strongly should the subject be dealt with and how much emphasis should be placed upon it. The subject is already covered in the article. It has to be looked at within the overall context of Berry's life and Berry's career. Having its own section and giving such a degree of detail makes it appear as more significant than it actually was. Berry's career has not been particularly damaged by the event, the publicity surrounding the case hasn't continued, it wasn't a major scandal, it was sorted out privately..... There are a few points to consider. Firstly WP:BLP. I don't see a problem with the brief discussion of these events because it's appropriately sourced. WP:UNDUE - I do see a problem here because it focusses on the events as being among the most significant aspects of Berry's biography, and this is not the case. WP:HARM - I do see a problem here also. If we place undue emphasis on something negative simply because we can find sources to support it, potentially we do harm. If you then go back to WP:BLP, the harm element becomes a problem. It needs to be kept in context. I'm not saying avoid it completely, but the previous version gave sufficient mention for anyone wanting to know about the subject. The "public"'s right to know does not negate the policies that we have in place to protect living people and ultimately to protect Wikipedia. Sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution, and I think this is one of those times. Please, before adding this again, I would invite anyone to state their case, and explain why the addition of this information is more important than the policies, guidelines and general processes that I've referred to above. Rossrs (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, it is helpful to know where you are coming from in order to find middle ground. A few points: I am not adverse to the idea of giving the issue an appropriate amount of attention. However, the information that was previously in the article only mentions one hit-and-run accident. You'll notice remarks at the top of this discussion page regarding the second hit and run accident --- it was in fact this remark that motivated my research. I wanted to know if there was in fact another incident, and I assumed that the person who posted the comment on this discussion page wanted clarification as well. Surely, we two can't be the only people confused about the topic. I would suggest that instead of just deleting my edits, please incorporate the facts in such a way that keeps the relevant information but does not smear Halle Berry's reputation. After all, I spent a good amount of time searching out and sourcing my edits --- it is a little frustrating for me when you just come in and erase all of the information I have presented.130.13.182.116 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also frustrating when you thank me for my comments and mention finding a middle ground and then completely disregard my comments and the middle ground that you have referred to. There are two editors than do not support the inclusion of this information in the format that you've supplied, so it's not appropriate for you to simply paste back the entire section. If the inclusion of material is disputed - as it has been - it should be discussed and resolved at the talk page before it's added back to the article. If you want to reword it so that it covers both incidents, that's fine. It's not acceptable to have an entire section headed "hit and run" as it gives undue emphasis, and the level of detail is not appropriate. The fact that you've done a lot of research makes your frustration understandable but it doesn't make your reversion correct. I'll leave it as is to allow time for other editors to comment. I would suggest it be incorporated into the section of the article where it previously existed - not in its own section- and that it be abbreviated as follows. I particularly feel that the allegations are of a "she-said - she-said" variety and that Raythata is too strongly represented. We should stick to Raythata's actions and leave her opinion out. (The information is not meant to be exhaustive and anyone wanting more can go to the source material to read the fuller version)

Berry has been involved in two separate hit and run accidents. The more widely publicized incident occurred on February 23, 2000, when she ran a red light, in a rented Chevy Blazer crashed into a car driven by Hetal Raythatha, and fled the scene. Raythatha was treated for a broken right arm, and publicly stated that she was left permanently disabled from the accident. Berry later surrendered to police and was given a reduced charge of misdemeanor hit and run. She pled no contest, paid a fine and was placed on three years' probation. Raythatha filed a civil lawsuit against Berry for negligence that was later settled out of court. Raythatha alleged that Berry fled the scene because she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Berry's publicist countered that the police did not have any evidence that drugs or alcohol were involved, and that in fact Berry fled the scene to seek treatment for a head injury that resulted from the crash. Berry has maintained that she has no recollection of the accident, and only recalls arriving at her home with blood on her face. Police reported that Berry was the driver in a similar hit and run accident three years earlier, in which no charges were filed. Berry reportedly worked out a settlement with the other driver in this accident as well. Rossrs (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's fine to say it happened, but when we start adding fleshed-out sections that give more detail, including naming of a non-notable person who was injured and received some non-specific settlement, I believe we are giving it far too much weight in context of the rest of the article. It was a misdemeanor, it was not a felony and beyond the claim, prior to receiving a settlement, from the person injured that there was "permanent disability", there is nothing to indicate that the incident went beyond the time that it happened. There certainly is no corroboration that there was any permanent disability and for us to imply such is irresponsible. The most well-sourced content in the world can still be written in a biased manner and I feel that adding this section is such. It is in the article, that is sufficient. Wikipedia has a responsibility to avoid presenting content in a way that invites libel.

It is also inappropriate to revert something in the midst of a discussion on how and where it should be presented. This does not warrant a separate section, that is one of the more salient issues with undue weight. I don't have an issue with what Rossrs has posted above as a revision, with the exception of perhaps naming the person injured. I am absolutely certain it can and should be contained within a paragraph in the personal life section and not as a stand alone section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't thought of it, but User:Wildhartlivie is right. We don't need to name the other person and she is otherwise not notable. She should be "the driver" and the information, which is only relevant to Berry, stays focussed on Berry. Also, I believe "accident" is not a correct term as "accidents" are caused by people's actions. The term is being used less frequently by police etc. "Incident" is more correct. I've reworded it again, below, and I think this is more where we should be heading with reporting these events. Rossrs (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Berry has been involved in two separate hit and run accidents incidents. The more widely publicized incident occurred on February 23, 2000, when she ran a red light, in a rented Chevy Blazer crashed into a car driven by Hetal Raythatha, and fled the scene. Raythatha was treated for a broken right arm, and publicly stated that she was left permanently disabled from the accident. Berry later surrendered to police and was given a reduced charge of misdemeanor hit and run. She pled no contest, paid a fine and was placed on three years' probation. RaythathaThe driver of the other car filed a civil lawsuit against Berry for negligence that was later settled out of court. Raythatha alleged that Berry fled the scene because she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Berry's publicist countered that the police did not have any evidence that drugs or alcohol were involved, and that in fact Berry fled the scene to seek treatment for a head injury that resulted from the crash. Berry has maintained that she has no recollection of the accident,incident and only recalls arriving at her home with blood on her face. Police reported that Berry was the driver in a similar hit and run accident incident three years earlier, in which no charges were filed. Berry reportedly worked out a settlement with the other driver. in this accident as well. Rossrs (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with these edits, even though I think it shows a bit of bias as well. As long as the information is there so that people can find out what happened, that is fine. There's no reason that this sequence of editing couldn't have been done on the main page --- this is what should have happened instead of someone just coming in and deleting all of my hard work. If you read the Focus on content section of the dispute resolution page, you'll find the following passage: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, IMPROVE IT IF YOU CAN. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, DON'T JUST DELETE IT." These guidelines are there for a reason. Show me someone who wouldn't be irritated by having their work thrown away.130.13.182.116 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you are referring to as bias. It states the facts without repeating unfounded allegations by the other party which tend to imply that Berry was under the influence although the same articles state that this was not the case. It is irresponsible to repeat allegations that are unfounded. In any case, WP:BLP and WP:HARM take precedent over other policies regarding editing and the actions taken in this situation were done with regard to that. It would be one thing if something that was removed permanently, but nothing is gone on Wikipedia, it still exists in the history. The series of edits occurred because experienced editors saw major issues with presentation of content in regard to WP:BLP and removing questionably skewed content based on that supersedes WP:FOC and other such policies. As for the name of the other person involved, WP:BLP also addresses presumption of privacy, which in this case, would warrant removing the name of the non-notable person involved. This is basic stuff and should be adhered to. I have no problem with the section as edited by Rossrs above, and it should go in the personal life section without its own section heading. By the way, someone else has added an unreferenced statement that the incident became fodder for comedians, and that should be removed since it isn't cited. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by bias, but if you have a concern with it, all you have to do is say so. I've acknowledged your irritation. I don't think WP:FOC was important in the first instance, because both of the editors that objected to the inclusion of this information objected to it in its entirety and believed that the existing information sufficed, so it wasn't necessary to reword it. It's says "improve it if you can" - I didn't think it needed improvement, but I've offered this rewrite as a compromise. Now please stop complaining about how much time you've put into researching this, as I've spent just as much time discussing this with you. You're irritated. I get it. The information is retained in the history so it's not lost, but don't forget "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." which applies to every edit you or I or anyone else makes. "Edited mercilessly" can also mean "completely deleted". In any case, I'll take your "no problem with these edits" comment in good faith, and apply this to the article. (The fodder for comedians isn't that relevant. I'm sure Jay Leno and David Letterman etc will make quips about any current news story but only for as long as it remains topical, which is rarely long. If it entered the vernacular it may be different. It's not sourced or given within any context, so it just doesn't fit. ) Rossrs (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care if you want to admit it, but you shouldn't have just blindly deleted the edits. You can keep talking, but that's the truth, and I don't really have anything more to say about it. As far as the bias issue goes, it doesn't really matter to me. For example, I don't think calling something an 'incident' instead of an 'accident' is going to change anyone's mind about what happened. No one is that stupid. I do, however, want to commend both of you for working out a compromise with me. I know that neither of you wanted this content included, so it says something about your integrity as editors that you were willing to allow some version of these facts to appear in the article. Thanks for that.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what this added that wasn't already there, except the mention of the civil settlement (which is now there). The 2000 accident is significant to the biography because it led to one of her marriages - and that significance is sourced. I don't have a really strong objection to a brief mention at the end of that paragraph saying she was previously involved in a different accident, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as significant as the 2000 one. Gimmetrow 02:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

These incidents should be placed in a context in the biography. Wikipedia is (or should be) past the time when even the better articles were disordered lists of any factoid anyone could think of. The comedian line is 1) relevant to the significance of the event, and 2) contrary to Wildhart and Rossrs, sourced. Gimmetrow 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will back up Gimmetrow about the incident being fodder for comedians. I've seen an episode of 'Family Guy' where they have Halle smash into another car and then run off on foot.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the comedian's fodder comment is untrue, I recall that it was used, but I do fail to see where it's sourced. I'm not thrilled with adding heavily to this article, but the point has been made, and is valid, that there were two separate hit and run incidents. Efforts were being made to acknowledge that and while it is certainly proper to retain the statement that Berry credited Benet with helping her through that, removing the paragraph removes mention of the second incident. I give up, apparently omissions of fact in good articles shouldn't be rectified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above, I appreciate that you've put so much into discussing this and that's the whole purpose of these talk pages and discussion. We disagree over whether the information should have simply been removed, and if we disagree, we disagree. We don't have to agree, so I'm with you in letting that go now. "Accident" / "incident" is semantics. It's neither here nor there but "incident" is a valid term. You're right though. Nobody is stupid enough to change their opinion of events because of the word used, and that was not my intent. Incident is neutral. "Accident" by definition assumes it was nobody's fault. It's semantics. I can see that the "fodder for comedians" is sourced. I missed that because the source is at the end of the next sentence, not the one discussing the "fodder", but OK, it's sourced. Considering that this is/was being discussed, I'm perplexed by Gimmetrow's reversion especially as it does not change the context. Unless it's the bit about Benet supporting Berry. I don't see this as a disordered list of factoids, something that I'm generally opposed to also. Maybe I shouldn't have changed the bit about Benet, but even so, we're back to revert rather than improve and it's not appropriate, given the depth of discussion this has been taken place today. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is Berry's quote about feeling "really good about the resolution". That's superfluous at best. Rossrs (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's exactly "the bit about Benet" because that's why this accident is significant to her life. If it were just some accident, I don't think it would matter. Compare the 2006 Mel Gibson DUI incident, which was widely reported and resulted in legislation. Hypothetically, if he had also been stopped and warned for drunk driving in 1998, but that was not widely reported not had any more significance to his life, would it need to be included here? "Omissions of fact" sounds rather negative, but we routinely select some facts and exclude others when writing. Due weight means minor items don't usually get much detail. Gimmetrow 03:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that removing the comment about Benet was not good judgement on my part. I don't see Benet as the connecting factor that makes the episode significant to Berry, but I do see Benet as important and obviously this was a major event during their marriage. I don't disagree with the article as it currently stands, because this is essentially the version I favoured at the beginning. "Due weight" is one of the main points that Wildhartlivie and I were both commenting on, so I agree with you there also. Aside from the Benet reference, I don't see it as majorly different to what I changed it to. I still see no point in recording that Berry felt "really good about the resolution" because it's vague and lacking substance and it doesn't say anything about Berry except that she is able to be polite and noncomittal. Unless I'm missing something. Would you object to it being removed? Rossrs (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do object to it being removed. It was a brief line that went to her state of mind and the significance of the event in her life. I think those few words add more than does expanding "a civil lawsuit was settled out of court" to "the other driver filed civil lawsuit, which was later settled out of court". Gimmetrow 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I do have to wonder after all the fuss made yesterday over changes that were made following discussion by three other editors to one small section in this article, why nothing whatsoever has been said about changes that were made today to that section, which include a link to a YouTube posting of a copyrighted television broadcast. I'm certainly not going to change it because our discussion and attempt to work this informatino in was essentially overruled and removed, but presently, the content contains the improper YouTube link and punctuation errors. Hopefully someone will repair these issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pleasant Irony

There is nothing ironic about playing somebody who was nominated for an oscar and then winning an oscar.

It would be ironic perhaps if she played a terrible actress in that movie who nevertheless dreamed of winning on oscar